Why are anti-sharia bills finally getting passed…despite terror front group CAIR’s efforts to get them killed?

When Oklahoma voters overwhelmingly approved a 2010 ballot measure that prohibits state courts from considering Islamic law, or Sharia, the Council of American-Islamic Relations filed a lawsuit within two days challenging the constitutionality of the measure, and won. But when Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin signed a similar measure, one that its sponsor said would forbid Sharia, on April 19 of this year, no legal challenges were mounted. Why the change?

Washington Post The biggest difference is that the older bill — and others like it — singled out Islam and Shariah. The new bills, however, are more vague and mention only foreign laws, with no references to Shariah or Islam. They also make specific exceptions for international trade. All of that makes them harder to challenge as a violation of religious freedom.

“These bills don’t have any real-world effect. Their only purpose is to allow people to vilify Islam,” said Corey Saylor, CAIR’s legislative affairs director, of the more recent bills.(Islam and CAIR deserve to be vilified)

The change in language seems to have helped such bills advance in several states. And while these bills no longer single out Shariah, it is often understood that Shariah is the target, which many legislators make no secret of.

The driving force behind these new versions of anti-Shariah laws is (justifiable)“anti-Muslim bigotry plain and simple,” said Daniel Mach of the American Civil Liberties Union, speaking on a panel in Washington Thursday (May 16). To those agitating for such measures, “Islam is the face of the enemy,” he said. (No. Islam IS the enemy)

To date, Oklahoma is the sixth state — joining Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, South Dakota, and Tennessee — to adopt a law prohibiting courts from using foreign or international law, with some exceptions, in their decisions.

This year, at least 36 anti-foreign law bills have been proposed in 15 states, down from 51 bills in 23 states in 2011. While most of this year’s anti-foreign law bills have failed, several others, have advanced:

* A North Carolina legislative committee on Thursday sent a bill to the Senate after it had passed the House that would prohibit consideration of foreign laws in custody and other family law cases.

* On May 9, the Missouri legislature passed an anti-foreign law bill that goes next to Gov. Jay Nixon, who has until July 14 to decide whether he will sign or veto it. Nixon, a Democrat, has not indicated what he will do, and did not reply to a request for comment. (Because there is a veto-proof House and Senate, even if Nixon doesn’t sign the bill, it passes)

* In Alabama, Indiana and Texas, anti-foreign law bills have made it through the state senates, and are now either in house committees or awaiting full floor votes.

* An anti-foreign law bill in Florida that needed a two-thirds majority to pass fell one vote short, 25-14. Besides Florida, anti-foreign law bills have been introduced but were defeated, died, or are languishing in Arkansas, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Despite the losses, David Yerushalmi, the Washington-based lawyer who drafted template legislation used for the anti-Shariah and anti-foreign law bills, said the anti-Shariah movement “is growing every day” and expects more states to adopt such bills in the future.

“People see the threat and also know that a bill that simply protects U.S. citizens and residents from constitutionally offensive foreign laws and judgments can only be a good thing,” Yerushalmi said.

But CAIR’s Saylor said that victory may prove elusive for the anti-Shariah forces. By stripping all references to Islamic law, the anti-Shariah movement has failed to restrict Muslim religious rights. “In terms of substance, it’s already been beaten,” he said.

Nevertheless, some observers worry that even these watered-down bills could still be interpreted in ways that impinge on Muslims’ religious freedom.

“While the foreign law bans are certainly less of a frontal assault on religious freedom than the anti-Shariah bills, they continue to raise concerns about bias towards minority faiths,” said Faiza Patel, co-director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law.

“The bans cast a cloud of uncertainty over a myriad of arrangements, including family and business-related matters, simply because they have foreign or religious origins.”

She added that some bans on foreign law seem to require judges to reject any foreign law or judgment that comes from a country that does not protect rights in the same way the United States does, even if the case being considered does not raise any rights concerns.

Even CAIR won’t rule out the possibility of future legal challenges. “If someone tries to use these laws to undermine a person’s religious rights, we’re keeping all of our legal options on the table,” Saylor said.

Reader Interactions

Comments

I’m a little confused about this movement. Obviously having Sharia law in the US would be bad, but what’s the point of banning in? It would also be bad if we switched our judicial system to that of Ancient Rome, or modern North Korea, but it doesn’t seem like there’s a pressing need to ‘ban’ those legal systems. Anyone care to enlighten me?

You mentioned the Muslim Brotherhood. If you check the Jewish Press after 2009 when Obama spoke at Cairo University in his first major Middle-East speech that was so widely advertised, you would find that the first two rows of seating, normally provided for Cairo hierarchy, had been reserved by Obama for the Muslim Brotherhood. This was written by reporters in the Jewish Newspapers that attended. Secondly, there has be no condemnation in any way, shape or form from our President when Morsi created the constitution away from the assembly, then called for a state of emergency. He dismissed all the military leaders that were friendly to the U.S., imposed the second most stringent Sharia Law in the Arab world (Saudi Arabia is the strictest) and began killing Coptic Christians after the election. Yet we still sent F16’s, Abrams Tanks and $250M with Sec. Kerry. BareNakedIslam you are doing a great job! Keep it up.

Destroy Islam..not place for Islam in America, forget Sharia and shit like that. Ban Islam..ban koran. Enough with the nonsense, we need to read Islam’s 1400 year of bloody history..good thing people are waking up but all America has to rise against Islam and people who promote it..aka Obama

In addition to anti-sharia legislation Missouri passed 2nd Amendment Preservation legislation so her residents will not be defenseless against Islamic terrorists .

During the final hours of the Missouri legislative session on 05/17/2013 ALL measures pending to improve and enhance state rape and domestic violence laws were passed. What a great victory for women and girls and defeat for Islam!!

THIS IS OUR AMERICA OUR COUNTRY OUR CONSTITUTION. THERE WILL NEVER BE ACCEPTANCE OF SHARIA ANYTHING! SCREW THE MUSLIME PIGS AND THEIR SHARIA ANYTHING AND THEIR PEDOPHILE PROFIT! OUR COUNTRY OUR RULES! IF OUR GOVERNMENT DOESNT GET MOVING ON THIS AND MAKE IT STICK THEN WE WILL VOTE THEM OUT ON THEIR ASSES! THESE MUSLIME PIGS HAVE NO IDEA WHO THEY ARE MESSING WITH. IF OUR GOVERNMENT GOES AGAINST OUR CONSTITUTION THEN THEY ARE NOT WORKING FOR US SO THEY MUST BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE BY LAW!

That’s exactly what I’m started to realise; this CAIR outfit has nothing to do American/Islam relations at all. How does an organisation that tries to reshape a democratic nations whole legal system against the wishes of the majority, possibly have any credibility, as an organisation promoting American/Islamic relations

If you waved a magic wand and made me president CAIR would be the first outfit I’d abolish.

If the proposers of the original bills had had their wits about them they would have phrased them like the present ones and they would have all passed. I would, however, like to propose that in certain instances, at the discretion of the court, certain penalties as only prescribed by Sharia law be levied on Muslims, such as cutting off their hands when they steal, etc., mainly to make them feel at home, of course.

Most of these lawyers are not aware of the draconian measures in Sharia, including the duty of Moslems to fight and depose a ruler who doesn’t enforce Sharia. That means Sharia solicits the overthrow of the US constitution!

1/ If sharia ‘law’ is the same as American law, there is no need for it.
2/ If sharia ‘law’ is offensive to civilized Americans – instant divorce rights for men only, four wives, beating wives, ‘honor’ killings… – and documented cases exist of its use, then it should be totally banned by Congress, instead of the opposite, overturning the expressed will of the people.

3/ And yes, if other ‘groups’ (racial, religious, personality based) espouse laws which don’t exactly conform with US law (see 1/ above), said groups should remove their alien bodies and ideas to some place which WILL embrace them. North Korea, Saudi Arabia and Cuba spring to mind; but not necessarily in that order.

If this is true then there are tons and tons of American law that need to be scraped! One sex offender registration, Think it’s NOT unconstitutional? THINK AGAIN!!!!!!!!! How about the NO smoking LAWS?